nanog mailing list archives
Re: AT&T NYC
From: Jesper Skriver <jesper () skriver dk>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 17:36:30 +0200
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 05:26:54PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Jesper Skriver wrote:Links and loopbacks => IGPWhy on earth does you want your link addresses in your IGP ?Sometimes it cannot be avoided, due to bad implementation, but why do you need it ?Routers that learn a route over IBGP need to know where the next hop address for route from other AS points to. Since this can't be a loopback address and you typically don't run an IGP on subnets between border routers in your AS and a remote AS, you need to either set next-hop-self on all IBGP sessions or redistribute connected in your IGP.
Yes, next-hop-self on iBGP sessions is a way to ensure that all BGP routes have a loopback address as next-hop. This also solve nasty issues with IXP's, and someone advertising a more specific of the peering LAN prefix. /Jesper -- Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skriver(dot)dk - CCIE #5456 Senior network engineer @ AS3292, TDC Tele Danmark One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them, One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them.
Current thread:
- Re: AT&T NYC bdragon (Sep 02)
- Re: AT&T NYC Petri Helenius (Sep 02)
- Re: AT&T NYC Stephen J. Wilcox (Sep 02)
- Re: AT&T NYC alex (Sep 02)
- Re: AT&T NYC bdragon (Sep 02)
- Re: AT&T NYC alex (Sep 02)
- Re: AT&T NYC Clayton Fiske (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC alex (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC Jesper Skriver (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC Jesper Skriver (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC alex (Sep 02)
- Re: AT&T NYC bdragon (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC alex (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC alex (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC Stephen J. Wilcox (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC alex (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC Stephen J. Wilcox (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC alex (Sep 03)
- Re: AT&T NYC Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 03)